Architect #22 – Max Behr

Best Course: Lakeside Golf Club in California

Other notable work: Rancho Santa Fe: (written by Geoff Shackelford) Behr’s brilliantly routed inland masterpiece in San Diego incorporated coastal sage scrub and land features to create strategic interest.

Overview: Max Behr is one of the greatest writers on golf of all time and was the first editor of Golf Illustrated. He also provided the single best explanation about what golf architects should be trying are to accomplish with strategies and the playing experience (see below).

Praise for the work: Max Behr was a bit of a radical in his approach. He disliked the use of rough and preferred to have wide open areas where strategy was dictated by bunkering. He talked eloquently about the placement of hazards with the following quote, “The direct line to the hole is called the line of instinct, and to make a great hole you must break up that line in order to create a line of charm. The line of charm is the provocative path that shaves off distance and provides an ideal an ideal line into the green, usually by skirting bunkers and other hazards. The golfer wants the most direct line he can find to the hole, while the architect uses bunkers and other hazards to create risk and reward options that suggest the ideal line for the player, or the line of charm.” He actively defended his greens from all but the ideal line using green contours, approach slopes and bunkers to make placement from the tee more important than it initially appeared.



The 13th at Lakeside Golf Club (photo courtesy of Geoff Shackelford's The Golen Age of Golf Design)




Criticisms: The question raised by one architect was if his work was so great - why did so little of it survive. Some criticism has been suggested that he was a far better writer than architect.

Great Quotes: “The concern of the architect should be positive and have solely to do with what a golfer should do. His mission is not that or a moralist, the principle word of whose vocabulary is DON”T. The golfer should not be made to feel that he must renounce, that the primary object for him is to conquer his faults. It is not for the architect to inform him he played badly. That is for the professional. No, the mission of the architect is that of a leader. By the development of his hazards he exhorts the golfer to do his best, enticing him at times ‘to shoot the bones for the whole works.’ Thus he instills the golfer a spirit of conquest by presenting him with definite objectives upon which he must concentrate. It is for the golfer to stamp his law upon the ground. It is no way the business of the architect to stamp his law upon the golfer. But thus it is in most cases. The penal school of golf spells death to that spirit of independence, life and freedom which we are all seeking, and which we should find in all places of our recreation.”

A shorter one: “What then, should the function of hazards be? The answer is: to attack skill through the mind.”

His best: Lakeside Golf Club (written by Geoff Shackelford) Bobby Jones fell in love with Max Behr’s inland links while filming his 1931 golf movies. Behr believed in wide fairways and multiple hole location options to dictate tee shot placement. It is safe to say that Lakeside inspired Jones and MacKenzie to go forward with Augusta National’s revolutionary design.

What I take from him: His thoughts about playing freedom have shaped my design philosophy and I know put a lot of time in designing towards the ideal playing experience because of his writings. He has made me determined to design in the freedom for players to choose the routes they want to take, the difficulty they will take on and the playing experience they want for themselves.

Next Architect: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/05/architect-21-herbert-strong.html

Architect #23 – Robert Trent Jones

Best Course: Spyglass Hill

Other notable work: Valderamma, Peachtree, Cragburn, Montauk Downs, Dorado Beach,

Notable Renovations: Augusta National and Oakland Hills

Overview: The 1951 US Open made Trent Jones’s famous because he had done the renovation to Oakland Hills. Ben Hogan’s famous remark “that I brought the monster to its knees,” and the attention he had through a series of articles about his work, made Trent the most famous and recognizable architect in golf. At Oakland Hills, Trent created what he called target golf by pinching most landing areas on both sides with bunkers and heavily bunkering the greens to create difficulty. He ushered in the tactics that the USGA still embrace as the way to conduct a US Open.


















Trent Jones claims to have originated a new school of design called the heroic school of architecture, which was a blend of the penal school and the strategic school. While he points to Tillinghast and Thompson as inspiration I feel there is a lot of William Flynn in his work too. Trent often used a combination of carry bunkers and target bunkers to emphasis the strategy of many landing areas. He also used flanking bunkering on occasion and even fronting bunkers at greens to mix things up. His architecture was very visual and he tended to fully define all the target areas from tee to green and make the course easy to understand and challenging to play.

Praise for the work: There is no question that Robert Trent Jones was the champion for the average player. The variety in yardages and the mantra of a hard par and an easy bogie was something the public liked and the media embraced as good design. Trent Jones employed a common sense approach and a visual flair to create a “new” standard for golf design that was easy to understand and clear right from the very first play.

His courses featured huge tees and greens that were easy for maintenance. His designs had huge flexibility in set up that offered seemingly endless variety. He kept the challenge by building well defined pin positions into very large greens, but the real secret was the flexibility in the set up from long to short and from hard to easy depending on tee markers and pin positions that made the game much more enjoyable for the average player.













Criticisms: Trent Jones introduced the idea of creating ponds right up against greens to add beauty and challenge. He was particularly fond of this idea for par threes where the hole was all carry from tee to green. He believed this particular heroic shot made the holes memorable with the water heightening the excitement. The only problem with this was he overused the technique to deal with holes without natural features. As he used it more and more so that it became almost a standard on the green sites of most of the par fives, when you add in the similar use by other architects of that era and you get an awful lot of work that looks and plays very similar. This technique is still overused by many architects today.

The other criticism is he took on too much work and ended up turning too much to a formula where all his work looks and plays the same. Any art done to a formula is no longer art. While his work is very solid with few mistakes anywhere, it is too predictable and safe to really compete with the great work by the architects to come.

Great Quotes: “a hard par and an easy bogie."

My favourite: Spyglass Hill, despite the fact that you begin on the best stretch of land and finish with the remainder of the holes in the trees, the golf course is rock solid from start to finish. Some of the interior holes, like the 16th are some of the best on the course. I personally think that the 4th hole at Spyglass is the very best hole I have seen of his work.















What I take from him: To be very frank it’s his marketing skills. He turned the media coverage from the Oakland Hills renovation into a sales pitch. Once Herbert Warren Wind wrote a very flattering piece in The New Yorker about Trent and the Open he recognized the value of all the attention and coveted it for the rest of his career. He brought us the idea of the signature architect and made his own name a brand name.

Next Architect: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/05/architect-22-max-behr.html

Architect #24 - Herbert Leeds

(picture is from Geoff Shackelford's book - The Golden Age of Golf Design)

Best Course: Myopia Hunt Club, ranked 33rd in the Classic List in Golf Week. The course was so good that it hosted four early US Opens.

Other notable work: The Palmetto Golf Club in Georgia, and Kebo Valley Golf Club in Maine

Overview: Not a lot is known about Herbert Leeds other than he came from wealth and was a lifelong sportsman excelling in sailing and golf. He was even a member of the USGA executive committee in 1905.

He does not have a large body of work so we are left to judge him mainly on Myopia Hunt - the focus of his life’s work. Leeds was not happy with the state of American course architecture - particularly the original course at Myopia - and persuaded his club to build a new and much improved 18 holes. He began by visiting Shinnecock Hills - then the standard of excellence - to learn about the architecture. He paid close attention to the greens set in the natural hollows and on top of plateaus and employed the same techniques. Where he excelled was how he also incorporated the undulations of the land to challenge the tee shots. He reinforced the strategies with numerous bunkers to penalize a misplayed shot. While he did design a couple of other courses he focus was making refinements and improvements to Myopia Hunt right up until his death.



2nd hole at Myopia Hunt

Praise for the work: Whether the strategies came from evolution and observance - or right from the initial design - the results speak for themselves. He was known to carry white chips with him and if a good player got away with a seeming miss, he would drop a few chips in the area and a bunker would shortly appear thereafter. Because of this approach to bunkering the course has often been called penal, but that would be underestimating the superior strategies created by the cants of the fairways and the severe contours he created aton the green that create strategy. The bunkers simply supported or emphasized what he had already laid out.

The use of landforms remains the genius of the course by combining severe penalties for a miss and the tiny greens as targets, the course still holds up well in a modern context. The club has one of the finest collections of short holes in golf.



The Taft Bunker on the 10th at Myopia Hunt

Criticisms: Myopia is considered more penal than strategic in nature due to the proliferation and depth of the bunkers that Leeds added over the years. There has also been criticism for his famous chocolate drop mounds created by burying the stone walls found on site. He built them because he felt the mounds were more fair that playing around the walls. The critics have suggested the mounds look forced upon the site and have pointed out the future influence on the use of mounding to add definition.

My favourite: Myopia Hunt Club




Kebo Valley, early 1900's

What I take from him: Utilizing the natural cants to create strategy is an underestimated skill in routing. For bunkers to have meaning and create strategy - they must be deep and occasionally penal. That green contours are the most important contours of all.

Next Architect: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/05/architect-23-robert-trent-jones.html

Top 25 Golf Course Architects - #25 - Mike Strantz

The opening shot at Tobacco Road -intimidation at its best - there's lots of room beyond the dunes

Best Course: Monterey Peninsula GC (Shore Course), 44th in Golfweek’s modern list

Other notable work: Tobacco Road, Royal New Kent, Caledonia Golf & Fishing Club, Tot Hill Farm, Stonehouse, True Blue

Overview: Mike Strantz’s inclusion in my list might raise a few eyebrows. He’s still not well accepted as an architect - even today – which surprises me since I think he will be better appreciated over time. The people that really like his work actively seek out all his courses and interestingly enough many are the younger architects in the ASGCA. He embodies the idea that the line between genius and madman is razor thin – often stepping on both sides with delightful results. No matter what you think of his work, there is no denying his superior talent, and his guts to push golf course architecture to its very limits.

Praise for the work:
I have never seen an architect combine intimidation and opportunity so masterfully. His architecture is as frustrating as it is exciting but once you finish you can’t wait to play it again. As an architect I admire his audacity to build something so different and so controversial that you knew it couldn’t be embraced by critics or the public at large.

He believes that you get a bigger thrill when you make a great shot that seemingly overcomes impossible odds – he does this by making his work look overwhelming at times but in reality is a lot easier than it appears. While most would point to the intentional blindness and very wild greens to say that his work is over the top, they have missed his use of width to create playability and alternative (safer) routes. People seem to be focused on the dangerous short cuts that encourage a risky style of play and often don’t play the course enough to find the safer alternatives of each hole. It’s too easy to condemn his work on first play.

Caledonia Golf and Fishing Club












Criticisms:
His architecture is said to be too severe to have any playability with the chief complaint being how tough the courses are for the weaker player. The bunkers are severe; there are massive expanses of sand everywhere, you can putt off greens due the severe shelves, he uses cross hazards, and some shots are all or nothing with no options. The biggest complaint has to be the intentional use of blindness that most feel is not only unfair but dangerous. They think his architecture is akin to the high school bully who pushes them around and intimidates them until they go home. His work is either loved or hated – and they hate it.

Great Quotes:
“It is important to make the golf hole look more difficult than it really is."

“That is almost always the case on our courses, but if your mind convinces you that it really is a difficult shot, you’re beat before you even take the club back.”

A sketch of the 6th at Moneterey Peninsula Shore Course with the seeping fairways.

My favourite: Monterey Peninsula GC (Shore Course) If fits the space so well with massive horizontal movement in the fairways to help fill the wide open space of the site. The more restrained and subdued architecture at MPCC, with a few little flash points here and there, gives you more time to enjoy the setting.

Future Movement on the List: Up

What I take from him: A superior playing experience is not only brought through the freedom to choose, but also through the joy of overcoming difficulty.

Mike has taught me to take risks with my architecture and to say to hell with convention and criticism – it’s all about great holes.

Next Architect: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/05/architect-25-mike-strantz.html

Architects that Didn’t Make My List

The 13th at Addington by Abercromby









The 25 architects on my list span from golf architecture’s origins to very recent times. I made the decision that I would not include active architects, since that could lead to hurt feelings, and this would avoid the fact that their status may rise and fall with a single project. My list of architects vary from men with hundreds of projects to their credit through to architect’s with a single course. I decided that it was best to include everyone regardless of the amount of work they did, and to not combine architects that worked together. I wanted to judge them separately where possible. As I write this I still do not have the list in a final order and likely won’t until the day I write each piece!

When I knocked the list down to 25 architects, I was quite surprised at the quality of architects that didn’t make my top 25. Consider the following names and the work that they did and you’ll see why:

J.F. Abercromby
John Low
Deverault Emmett
Tom Bendelow
George Combe
C.K. Hotchkins
Horace Hutcheson
William Frownes
Charles Banks
Chandler Egan
Robert Hunter
Walter Hatch
James MCGovern
Kinja Fujita
Wayne Stiles
Vernon Macan
Billy Bell
Mackenzie Ross
Alex Russell
Fred Hawtree
Red Lawrence
William Gordon
Dick Wilson
Eddie hackett

The 1st green at Paraparaumu Beach by Russell







So why did the above list of architects not make the list? Many simply have too limited a body of work without that significant project that sets them apart. Other architects were famous from one very important course but they were not the only one involved, even if they were a key figure. A few of the architects worked in partnership with a more significant architect and their own solo work was not strong enough to warrant inclusion. The best example of a tough choice is William Frownes. Nobody can argue against the quality of the course that he built at Oakmont, but Oakmont has not had the same influence over the future of golf course architecture that other courses have – when you combine this with one great course – it was not enough. When I have struggled, I have often turned to influence to help draw the line.

The more interesting debate for me came with some high profile architects who have dominated the periods they practiced in. I’m not a believer in popularity or quantity as a measure of greatness, in fact quantity is often a source of my criticism since it breeds mediocrity - but I did find it hard to exclude all their influence and to recognize the quality found in some of their projects.

Enjoy the list as a source of fun – make your comments and offer your criticisms too – just remember this is not intended as a definitive list.

First Architect: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/05/top-25-golf-course-architects-25-mike.html

Do I dare do produce a list of the Top 25 Greatest Architects of all Time?

“This list is so horrible I don't know to begin so I won't because there's too much to talk about.” One of the first comments on the 50 Greatest Fighter List

I have enjoyed reading the 50 Greatest Boxers of all Time – a feature presented on ESPN.com – written by Kieran Mulvaney. The link is here for the curious:
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/greatest/featureVideo?page=greatest150

The list is highly controversial - and heavily criticized – but compelling all the same. The film clips presented with the article must be seen. I’m not a boxing aficionado by any stretch of the imagination, but even I was nostalgic watching the clips of fighters like Roberto Duran and Muhammad Ali.

This got me thinking that there must be a list of the top 10 or 25 greatest or influential golf course architects. Apparently there was something in Golf Week that mentions Mike Strantz – since he had mentioned it on his web site - but I was unable to come up with that list. I couldn’t find anything and it had me wondering could I dare come up with an actual list. I like lists – hell everyone likes lists – but this one seemed a tall order. I think the idea of one person putting together a list of the greatest architects of all time is kind of silly since none of us could possibly have the knowledge to really do this by ourselves and we all bring specific bias that will shape the list to suit out tastes.

The next problem is familiarity, since most people have a closer association to one or two particular architects and will have very limited exposure to work by others due to geography or time. This is where their reputations and the written opinion of others will end up shaping the list more than one person’s experience could. To do this you would need to go out on a limb at times - Kieran certainly did – but it would open you up to criticism for even trying.

I was able to put together a quick tentative list of my personal top ten architects, but that seemed to be too few. I then decided to list all the architects who did something that shaped golf course architecture and I found I was quickly up to 35. I ended up with an arbitrary list of 25, since that seemed to include all the really great architects in history and a few worthy of mention for their contributions to the art form. After I formed my initial list of 25, it wasn’t who made the list that drew my attention, but rather the quality of architects left off.

The next question was where to place people single course architects with one incredibly great course to their credit? Would that be fair to compare them to an architect who built 100 courses with only one that was considered the equal of the greatest - but the rest of his work was clearly not?

Next Page: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/05/architects-that-didnt-make-my-list.html

The Notion of a High Water mark

Merion with front bunkers returned on the 4th

Pat Mucci has asked some questions on Golfclubatlas.com about restoration, and specifically about renovating to a key date or time in a clubs history. This is often referred to as the architectural high water mark.

The thread is here:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=29029

I’m not sure I buy into the concept of “high water mark.” I do think restoration architects usually choose a date to restore to and then spend their efforts trying to get “most” of the course back to that date. In fact most “dates” present themselves without much debate. Whether due to information or circumstance, one day usually stands out from all others and selecting this date as a high water mark may make perfect sense.

But what if there are many dates to choose from? For example what was the high water mark at Merion for example? The 1930 US Open with Bobby Jones win? Ben Hogan? The Last US Open won by Davis Graham? Merion is the best example where one significant date seems too narrow-minded. While 1930 was a great date for golf, I struggle with that being “the” date for the course when you consider the work of the superintendent Joe Valentine and where the course evolved to during his tenure. To ignore that seems to myopic to me. Merion choose 1930, which was a logical date I guess, but I personally found there are a couple of holes where I wish they never went back to 1930 when they did the recent renovation.

Pat asks the question of who should decide. My answer is an architect or golf writer who is heavily involved in preservation and history of golf course architecture. They need someone who will place the history of the course and the importance of the architecture in its proper perspective. I think a club has to seek outside opinion and see if they all agree. They may need to do nothing until they are truly sure that they have made the correct decision.

Choosing one date is not always appropriate. Most clubs have many significant dates and many photographs that span a series of years. The information provides a series of snapshots to the evolution of the course. While one logical date may tie in with a significant moment at the club, there is also a chance that the architecture of the club was far superior before or after this date. The last Canadian Open at St. George’s brought significant changes and I would argue this was also the architectural “low” water mark for that club, but someone else may choose that date because of the historical significance. Choosing one date brings a danger. Seminole would be an example where going back to “Ross” would be an immediate reaction and yet the 18th green relocated by Dick Wilson is a standout thatmakes the hole great.








This is not a simple question, and truth be told, this can only be answered on a case by case basis. While I don't disagree with the notion of a high water mark, I don't agree with the concept of a high water mark for all courses.

So....What’s in the Future?

Well I’ve either entertained you or bored you to death with a three week out look at the history of golf course architecture. This wasn’t an accurate history, but rather a look at the key players and key developments along the way and how they shaped the current state of golf architecture.
I’ve identified Coore and Crenshaw both as the leading architects and the most influential designers of this era. I’ve also pointed to Tom Doak, who looks to be trying his damn hardest to be considered the greatest architect of his generation. While he’ll certainly build more than Crenshaw and Coore, that may also be his undoing since he also tends to spread himself too thin at times. His work in the southern hemisphere has certainly turned all heads in his direction though. Coore and Crenshaw’s insistence on handling no more than two jobs at a time means they will remain more selective of properties and projects and put more personal time into each site. That is the recipe for greatness.

The Minimalism movement will begin to dominate golf course architecture and slowly push aside a few of the older modern architects as times get a little tougher. The cheaper to build “minimalist” course will continue to make more economic sense and minimalism will continue to get more critical support as time goes forward. Golf will have a recession in the next few years and this will also help to push the Minimalist design style as the logical answer to continuing to build. Golf will go through some harder times in the near future but as usual there will be more building on the other end beginning with the more sensible economic models first and then getting back to some more ambitious projects later on. The driving force in new projects will be the value of real estate – either surrounding the courses – or the value of land under the course.

In my heart I want to believe that the infatuation with celebrity designers will stop, but society is so celebrity obsessed that I don’t hold out any hope. Britney Spears will design her first course….just kidding. Tiger Woods will become the biggest designer of the next era. Tiger will quickly topple Jack Nicklaus from the king of the player designers and Jack will retire at the end of this decade due to health. Tiger will employ half of the existing Team Fazio, at first as a partner and 10 years out as the owner when Tom sells the business to Tiger. Tiger will build far more courses than anyone else beginning about 5 years from now.

The greatest architect of the next decade will not have played professional golf. They will not come from a large office. They will be able to run a dozer and a computer, but do neither in the end. They have already interned or worked with an architect. They are not yet 30. They won’t move much earth. They will be fluent with philosophies and principles of the Golden Age. They will know the entire history of golf course architecture and have built their personal design style on that knowledge. They will not be a minimalist but have a style completely different from Coore and Doak. They will start the "next movement in golf course architecture."

2000 – 2007 Minimalism becomes.......Popular?

Bandon Trails by Crenshaw and Coore

Coore and Crenshaw have established themselves as the best architects in practice – their reputation clearly eclipses former decade leaders Fazio and Dye. Both are still busy, but people have found Fazio too predictable and Dye to…well….to unpredictable. A new crop of designers have also emerged to take over from the previous generation and while a few practice a version of modern design, most practice a style similar to Coore and Crenshaw. This style has been given the name “Minimalism” and this has become the new buzzword in golf design – it’s the name of the movement that defines this decade. The trend appears to be very firmly rooted and will quite likely be the defining trend for the near future.

Old Sandwich by C&C

Minimalism is actually a lousy term for what the movement really is since it was incorrectly named for the assumption of no earth movement in these new “retro” designs. The new movement is more a return to the roots of golf design. The latest crop of architects are choosing to ignore almost anything done recently and instead look all the way back to the work of the Golden Age of Golf Course Architecture. They are influenced by Colt and Mackenzie, rather than by Nicklaus or Fazio. They love early Pete Dye but have little regard for his latest work. They all love Bill Coore and want to build courses like he does. He has become the benchmark for this generation, their inspiration and often their mentor too.






Pacific Dunes by Tom Doak

So why is this style better than modern or post modern? It’s the playing experience itself. Golden Age Design is about freedom and discovery. Modernism or Post-Modernism tends to tell you what to do and where to go. Golden Age design invites you to gamble or “to shoot the bones for the whole works,” but also provides you with the freedom to take any route, including a tentative longer route to avoid risk. The great Golden Age layouts always compel you to take on greater risk than you should.




Barndougle Dunes in Tasmania by Tom Doak

While architects like Gil Hanse (Rustic Canyon), Mike DeVries (Kingsley Club), and others have create wonderful and interesting layouts, the architect who has moved to the forefront to take on Coore and Crenshaw is Tom Doak. Doak is to some a controversial figure due to his strong opinions and Confidential Guide to Golf Courses, but without question one very talented designer. Tom made his name initially with his writing and opinions and back them up with a very interesting first course called High Pointe, but his work at Pacific Dunes was his coming out party. The course received immediate comparisons to Cypress Point for its architecture, stetting and unusual hole sequences. The course was shorter than normal, wider than most, but brilliant in the use of the environment and the land to create a series of very compelling holes. Doak followed that up with a series of spectacular sea side courses in Australia, New Zealand and in the US. His work is comparable to the work of Coore and Crenshaw in both playing style and aesthetics – and now in quality too. There is no question he is clearly influenced by the work of Coore and Crenshaw – the question now is can he surpass it.

Next Entry: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/03/sowhats-in-future.html

1990 – 2000 The decade of Contrasting Styles

Sand Hills opener

This is one of the most interesting decades due to the explosive divisions in architectural philosophy practiced by a series of high profile architects. You have Rees Jones continuing on the legacy of his father with his new work like Atlantic Golf Club. His renovation work at Bethpage Black and other famous layouts provides him with the “Open Doctor” moniker just like his dad had and he become the USGA’s go to guy – like his dad. Nicklaus continues to work on hundreds of projects with many being outside the US, but gets into financial problems with the development and construction arm of his company. Pete Dye becomes the very antithesis of his early origins, while he continues with the remarkable design ideas that brought him to prominence, he now shapes and moves everything – a far cry from The Golf Club. His courses are still strategically excellent and fascinating, but the work lacks the same charm of the early courses. This culminates at Whistling Straights where he takes an average albeit lakefront property and moves millions of yards of earth to build a stunning “links” layout with so many bunkers that nobody has ever counted them.

Whistling Straights 17th

Mike Strantz, who had previously worked for Tom Fazio, was an architect walking completely out of step with all other – to my delight. The first signs of his genius are with a small tight property at Caledonia where he builds a remarkably clever and interesting layout that is a little different looking and playing than what people are used to. But there was so much more to come when you listen to this quote from an interview, “It is important to make the golf hole look more difficult than it really is." That is almost always the case on our courses, but if your mind convinces you that it really is a difficult shot, you’re beat before you even take the club back.” Caledonia was tricky in places but when he built Tobacco Road he built the most intimidating and controversial course constructed in recent time. This course is either loved or hated. I personally think this is because the course needs to be understood and respected before you can try out play it. The course uses large doses of intimidation – including blind shots – to overwhelm the player into playing in fear. The course also has width and short cuts galore to encourage a risky style of play, add this all up and you have one of the most unique and entertaining courses I have played. His work eventually softened culminating with his last course - the sublime Monterey Peninsula Shore Course - but one thing you can say about Mike’s work is that it was always interesting.

The 13th at Tobacco Road

The final prominent architect of the decade is Bill Coore. Bill began working with Pete Dye as a superintendent but became interested in architecture working on a few smaller jobs. He became involved with Ben Crenshaw and began to design so very lay of the land layouts with lots of interesting ground options and alternate strategies. The work caught immediate attention for the enjoyment in created when you played the courses. Everything changed overnight when they were asked to do Sand Hills in the middle of the Sand Hill country in Nebraska. Sand Hills was an exceptional property. Coore and Crenshaw showed the patience to walk and walk the property until they had found the right routing. While 100’s of perfect holes were available, they walked until they found a routing that would work, without having to disturb any of the natural site. Many of the hazards are natural blow outs, and others that were created to look like they were also blow outs too. The course is like Prairie Dunes where the line between golf and nature is blurred. The golf course is a perfect reflection of the site, has a perfect set of holes and will be this era’s greatest course.

The 17th at Sand Hills

Bill Coore caught everyone’s attention and ultimately ushered in a new movement called Minimalism. It may have originated with the Golden Age, been picked up by Pete Dye with The Golf Club, been regenerated with Tom Doak’s High Pointe, but it was Coore and Crenshaw that really made the statement that this movement was here to stay. They built the ultimate example at Sand Hills and then built a series of excellent examples at other less spectacular sites. Now their style has been copied by all the other architects including Nicklaus and fazio. Coore and Crenshaw became the trend setters.

Next Entry: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/03/2000-2007-minimalism-becomespopular.html

1980-1990 - The Road to Excess

This happens to be the era I care for the least.

It began with Pete Dye building a new tournament course called The Tournament Players Club of Sawgrass. This was part of a grandiose dream of Deane Beaman to build tournament courses belonging to the players where the average guy could pony up some significant dollars to go tee it up on the same courses. The players would begin a slow and steady investment in these courses and would reap major profits down the road. They would even joint venture these with resorts and housing developments to bring in a bigger return. They would rule the world……well IMG would do a much more efficient job later, but that’s another story. The TPC courses (beyond Sawgrass), built using player consultants, are largely forgettable courses that have all gone under massive renovation. The most unfortunate thing about the look and nature of the course was it was roundly copied by many architects all over the world - and while I really like the course - there never should have been a second one.

AT Sawgrass, Pete took a lousy property that was barely above water table and covered with bush, and slowly turn it into a brilliant piece of architecture and engineering. The course was based around most of his ideas involving smaller wilder greens, strategic placement of tee shots, clever strategic choices, but where it went two full steps further than his previous work was the addition of so much water directly into play. Pete had made the decision that the only way “to get those dudes thinking” was to use the finality of water as a way to make them blink. The ultimate statement of this was the island green built at #17, which came about by accident. This was the best source of sand on the site and they over mined it in order to cap all the fairways - and found there peninsula green had become….an island green. Once in play, they knew they had created the perfect tournament hole and a place the players feared from the opening tee shot. He had those dudes thinking and Pete Dye was in control.















Another architect who also would go on to embody the word “control” was Tom Fazio. Like Pete, the more courses he created, the more he wanted to control the site. Tom began with his uncle George Fazio creating tough layouts like the National in Toronto, but would eventually go on his own and create a very player friendly style that would define him as an architect. While Pete was into carry angles and deception, Tom preferred defining bunkers and a clear path to the hole. Tom seemed to be more concerned with hiding cart paths and grading tie-ins than he was about creating dilemmas. If anything, much of Tom’s work can be characterized as too safe and too fair to be great. Mackenzie always theorized that great holes began with initial controversy until they were understood - Fazio avoided controversy in favour of making a beautiful player friendly landscape.

The ultimate expression of his ability and style was Shadow Creek built in 1989. The course built for Steve Wynn in the desert and was a remarkable undertaking. Fazio began with a flat featureless site and moved millions of yards of sand. He then planted a massive amount of pine trees and landscaped the entire proprety to create a lush oasis with ravines amd wonderful rolls where you could only see the mountains in the distance but none of the flat desert right next door. The course is stunningly beautiful.

When asked about Tom as a designer, Bill Coore once remarked that he thought Fazio was a remarkable “Landscape Architect.”

Next Entry: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/03/1990-2000-decade-of-contrasting-styles.html

1970-1980 Jack Nicklaus begins...

Another fascinating period for what it meant to the future of golf course architecture. As an important side note, what I’m going to continue to talk about is the major events and major players in the design business who have made a lasting impact on the way golf architecture is now practiced. This means I will skip by some who did have an impact. That was always the idea of this series – but I know that I’ve now entered the era where most architects are alive and many are in practice – and a few may be sensitive to being ignored.

This era was the initial sign of the future rise of the celebrity or “brand-named” designer. The first “name” designer was Jack Nicklaus, the designer of Glen Abbey Golf Course in Oakville, who remains even through to today the best known of the “brand-name” designers – those golf architects who are recognizable by name. His later successful transition from player to architect ushered in the next great architectural trend – one that remains prevalent today – the trend to hire a “brand name” designer to design a new course. Nicklaus’s serious interest began with his visits to The Golf Club to see what Pete Dye was building. While he struggled with many of the ideas that Pete had, he certainly became increasingly interested enough to get eventually involved with Pete - as only a consultant - at Harbour Town in South Carolina. Harbour Town turned out to be ground breaking and the flash point to beginning a new trend in golf course architecture. Harbour Town may have been the symbolic end to the Trent Jones era even though he and many others continued to build in that style long after the popularity had declined.

















In 1973, Jack would work with Desmond Muirhead to develop Muirfield Village Golf Club, the new home for his Mermorial Tournament. The plan involved a tournament course - largely based upon Augusta National - and a housing community built around the outside of the course largely to finance the project. Muirhead planned the community and (according to most) routed the golf course. Desmond was a man with unusual ideas - and likely frustrated Jack – and they parted ways before the course was built. Jack hired Bob Cupp and Jay Morrish to be his staff and to see the course through to completion. Jay Morrish was the on site architect for Muirfield Village. The course displayed Jack’s ideas about play - demanding high soft approach shots - and aesthetics. H followed this approach until the last few years where he softened his demands on players and began to build courses that were a little more player friendly - and better from my view. With the success of the Memorial Tournament and the high praise for the course, Jack Nicklaus was in high demand right from the outset. He would become one of the most prolific golf architects in this era.

Pete Dye was definitely the rising star in golf architecture circles during the 1970’s. The decade began with Harbour Town, which immediately attracted golfer’s imagination during the Heritage Tournament. They were enthralled by his courses that looked so different than anything else they had seen. The timber banks, waste bunkers, pot bunkers, tiny greens, use of accent grasses in the bunkers, tight fairways, etc. This looked nothing like their home course and golfers traveled in droves to see this magical place.

This happened because this was also the decade where televised golf took off with large ratings brought upon by stars - like Jack Nicklaus. The public was now exposed to all these new courses through their television and this exposure was responsible for the rise of Pete Dye.

Next Entry: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/03/1980-1990-road-to-excess.html

1960-1970 – The Emergence of Pete Dye

The 13th at The Golf Club

This was another great era for the growth of golf where Trent Jones built another 100 courses all over the world. There was a whole new breed of architects that began the next great wave of golf course architecture and almost all were designing the way Trent Jones did. The modern (Trent Jones) school of design was the style that dominated the era almost completely. This was the era of modernization and “progress” where history was ignored for a more modern approach to everything. Maintenance and practicality often took precedence over artistry and aesthetics. Even the architecture in the United Kingdom, walked away from its roots and embraced the new modern American style of golf course. If Tom Simpson were alive, I have often wondered if he would have called this the second dark age.

Only a short rise in front of the green

There was one very fascinating exception to everything that was going on. Pete Dye made a tour of golf courses in Scotland with his wife Alice Dye and came back determined to build course that resembled those great links course and not the courses of Trent Jones. He was the very antithesis of the Trent Jones era doing almost exactly the opposite. He built shorter courses when length was in vogue. He believed in sharp abrupt features like swales and pits and hollows rather than long graceful lines. He built small difficult greens full of wild contour instead of the massive greens of the era. He moved as little dirt as possible, while new course were entirely shaped and cleaned up.

Bunkers unlike any others I have ever seen

He also brought back unusual features like railroad sleepers and pot bunkers. He also wasn’t afraid to use subtle features like a grass slope or long rough as a feature rather than always relying on a bunker. Some of his holes were very tight while others were unusually wide open. He built holes that were nearly impossible, while others offered a breather to the player. If there was one word to describe his style it was variety. This was all a return to much older ideas and sharply away from the modern idea of fairness that was slowly creeping into golf. Dye ran directly against the current trend in golf course architecture, and eventually influenced an overwhelming change in opinion.

The work Dye did at this particular point is some of the most influential on my generation’s architecture. He took us back to our roots, told us that we did not need to move the land, to make the details more intimate, look more closely at the early strategies, forget about length and just design interesting holes, and don’t be afraid to add a sense of humour back into the game.

The massive irony to me is everything he did at this point is an important part of what I believe now – everything that would come later seems like a contradiction to his early ideals.

Footnote added at 6:00pm

1. I forgot to mention Nicklaus came over to see what Pete was doing and this lead to harbour Town

2. See Tim's comments about televised tournament golf - this was an excellent insight that I was not aware of.

Next Entry: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/03/1970-1980-jack-nicklaus-begins.html

1950-1960 – The Robert Trent Jones Era

Robert Trent Jones’s emmergence coincided with a change in how courses were built. Before the war, courses were still largely being built by hand, by the machine age was about to begin. Architects would soon utilizing large amounts of earthmoving equipment. Initially, this was done to speed up construction but it soon removed the limits on what could be accomplished. Architects like Jones seized this opportunity and began to move away from adapting their ideas to suit the site, and began a design era of adapting sites to suit their ideas. As harder sites were overcome, this eventually ushered in the idea that anything was possible and golf courses were built on more and more difficult sites – eventually capped off when Jones built Mauna Kea right out of old lava fields by crushing the rock and turning it into soil.

The 1951 US Open made Trent Jones’s famous because of the renovation to Oakland Hills. Trent created what he called target golf by pinching most landing areas on both sides with bunkers and heavily bunkering the greens to create difficulty. Depending on your point of view Jones was either the villain or the hero – but aside from that he was all of a sudden very well known. Trent continued to make use of this new found fame and actively promoted his work as a designed by Robert Trent Jones, and likely even coining the phrase of signature design too. Trent was a far greater salesman, than designer, and quickly became the architect that everybody sought out because he was the best known architect of them all. It could be argued this was the origin of the celebrity designer.













Trent Jones believed in what he called the heroic school of architecture, which was in his mind a blend of the penal school and the strategic school. While his origins point often to Tillinghast and Thompson,Trent Jones also had his own strong ideas including using lots of water right up against greens. He was particularly fond of this idea for par threes where the hole was all carry from tee to green, like the famous 4th at Baltusrol. The idea was one heroic shot would be memorable and using water created heroic situations for the golfer to overcome. The only problem with this was the technique became highly overused by not only Trent, when a hole lacked natural features, but also by everyone else in that period – and is still overused by many architects today.

There were other architects from Eddie Hackett to William Mitchel, but only one gave him any real rivalry and that was Dick Wilson. Wilson was a savvy salesman just like Jones, but lacked the same world wide connections to carry near as much work. His constant battles with alchohol likely kept him from having a far greater presence. His architecture was based upon his old employer William Flynn. It had a little more aesthetic appeal, but was slightly less demanding strategically. He designed Doral shown below among many other well known layouts.


Doral - this week's venue









The interesting thing about the work from this era is how much it has influenced half the golf course architects in practice today, and how much it is completely dismissed by the other group I will talk about at the end of this series.

Next Entry: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/03/1960-1970-emergence-of-pete-dye.html

1940-1950 - The War Years

Biarritz, with the ocean holes long gone

Just as the golf industry seemed poised to recovery fully, the war completely stopped the progress of golf architecture. Not only did nothing get built, but the demand for the limited supply of oil and gas caused many courses to close and go to pasture. Both Maidstone and Augusta two courses belonging to the elite in society were forced to shut down till the end of the war.

To many of the seaside course the results were far more permanent. Turnberry was paved over to become an airstrip for the air force, the scars are still visible even today. Others like Princes and the famous Biarritz course in France were bombed out of existence. Oahu in Hawaii and Kawana Fuji in Japan were also severely damaged through bombardment. There were many smaller courses that were used for military training and even turned over for the production of vegetables to help make it through. Many courses disappeared for the greater good and rightfully so.

Paraparaumu and its wild undulations

The war would end in 1945 and reconstruction began, but golf was not an immediate priority. One early exception is also one of the only significant courses built. Paraparaumu in New Zealand was designed by Alex Russell (Royal Melbourne East) and made use of the severe and rolling terrain to make an exciting (and wind swept) golf course. The fairways feature pitch and roll with many greens set on natural plateaus placing a premium on shot-making. The course is the first of a slow trickle of new projects that came at the end of the decade, but many began to look different that their predecessors.

The end of an era saw Trent Jones make some changes to Augusta including the relocated 11th green and major change to the #16 hole. Both holes were clearly built to the new heroic school of architecture. This also brought the two “Bobby” Jones’s together, which led to the 1948 collaboration on the new Peachtree Golf Course in Atlanta. While this was supposed to combine the two talents, it became a pure expression of Robert Trent Jones instead. Peachtree marks the definitive end to the Golden Age and the definitive beginning to modern golf architecture. Robert Trent Jones built a course that featured huge tees and greens, huge flexibility in set up, including very defined pin positions built into very large greens. This architecture was very maintenance friendly with its ability to spread wear and offer massive flexibility in set up. It was flexible in the set up from long to short and from hard to easy depending on tee markers and pin positions. It also reflected Trent’s philosophy of a hard par and any easy bogie. It was the beginning of a new era.

Next Entry: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/03/1950-1960-robert-trent-jones-era.html

1930-1940 – The End of an Era

Augusta National is built ushering in Parkland golf







The market crash of 1929 had a massive impact on golf, particularly in North America. This was a major turn of events where 600 courses would close and only 200 would be built over the next 30 years. Most architects fell on to hard times with many having to retreat to other professions to survive.

Interestingly the world faired much better than the United States. The British Isles had an average of forty new courses built each year and many great courses like Royal Birkdale, Turnberry, and Ballybunion went through major transitions during this time. Charles Alison built Hirono and his pupil Kinya Fujita built a series of great Japanese courses. Stanley Thompson may have had less work in Canada but built a series of courses throughout South America all while building Capilano and Highland Links. Things had slowed down but course construction was still reasonably strong.

Pinehurst #2 goes through a major change in bunkering and regrassing the greens



It was the United States that was really hurt by the depression. In the US, Robert Trent Jones had an ominous beginning when his first golf course Midvale had to declare bankruptcy upon opening. Even Donald Ross was forced to retreat back to Pinehurst and but fortunately for all of us began to rework most of the courses including the fabled #2 course to make improvements from turf through to the architecture. Much of what is admired from playing characteristics through to green contours on the #2 course came from this period when the bunkers were rebuilt, the greens raised up with an additional layer of sand and Bermuda grass was established on the greens.




Prarie Dunes is built which became the influence for Sand Hills


The busiest architect was the mid-west designer Perry Maxwell who was working with many communities that had money because of the oil industry mainly. He was brought in to design both Southern Hills and Prairie Dunes which became important layouts. Maxwell also worked in partnership with Mackenzie to get courses like Crystal Downs through to completion. Maxwell’s architecture featured some of the most clever interior green contours the game has seen. He also had the ability to blur the line between architecture and nature at Prairie Dunes, so that the course blends marvelously in with the prairie environment. His site sensitive design style and reliance on contours in the land and contours on the greens would eventually be emulated by the minimalist movement to come. Maxwell would also end up rebuilding a few greens at a little course in Georgia.

Augusta National may not be the best course in golf, but it certainly is the most well known. At one point I would have said the most influential too, but Augusta is marching currently completely out of step with the rest of golf. Augusta National was Bobby Jones dream course (designed with Alister Mackenzie) based upon the playing styles, options and freedom found on the Old Course at St. Andrew’s. I have an old article from before construction that describes many of the holes like the 4th as based upon the Eden hole and even talks about the original concept employing a Redan! The course features dramatic fairway contours, water hazards, winding creeks, tree-lined fairways and high flashed bunkers that essential set the standard for what is considered the American Parkland golf course. It was even set up with the spectator in mind, another idea that resurfaces again down the road.

Next Entry: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/03/1940-1950-war-years.html

1920-1930 - Part 3- The books that shaped the Game

This era brought one of the most important developments in golf course architecture for future architects – the architects began to write books. The insight that this era offered to future architects is stunning. We learn about the basics of design, routing, strategy, philosophy through examples of some of the courses that were mentioned this week. My knowledge of architecture comes as much from these books as it does from all other sources and experiences when combined. This is where most future architects begin – or at least should.

The first to come out was Some Essays on Golf Architecture by Colt and Allison (1920). It was a collection of Colt’s writing and observations offering a series of insights and lessons into the design of golf courses. The book is short but full of many observations and anecdotes that give you concise looks into different facets of building a golf course in that era. The book was followed soon after was Alister Mackenzie’s Golf Architecture which remains a personal favourite. Alister expressed his very strong views on playability and design, but went deeper into the philosophical ideas of design and playing experience. He talked a lot about the psychology of the player and the architects influence over what the player experiences out on the course. He laid out much of his own personal philosophy and prefernces in design which is clearly evident in the body of his work. This was a much deeper looking into the art and science and was the first book to step away from a more how to do approach featured in many other books.

The end of the era brought three more outstanding books. The Links by Robert Hunter (1926) takes the reader with Hunter on his travels through England and Scotland with Hunter pointing out the good and bad on a series of golf courses he visits. Hunter slowly educates the reader about golf architecture, particularly pointing out the failings of penal architecture and the elements of architecture that add the greatest interest. He even sprinkles in a few surprising criticisms of famous courses along the way in order to educate the reader about design. Scotland’s Gift – Golf by CB MacDonald (1928) came soon after giving us MacDonald’s reflections of the game and his masterpiece. While we get excellent insight into how the National Golf Links of America was developed, we also get insight into other areas of golf including the origins of the USGA. This a rich book full of great quotes. The last was The Architectural Side of Golf by Wethered and Simpson (1929). This is perhaps the most thorough analysis of the strategic school of design. The book is very poignant and full of strong opinions particularly from Simpson when it comes to penal architecture. The interesting discussion that ensues about the ideal course is particularly interesting and the accompanying text and illustrations are some of the best.

I can not express how important this part of the Golden Age influenced future architects. It is the single most important decade in shaping most of the latest generation of architects.

Next Entry: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/03/1930-1940-end-of-era.html

1920-1930 - Part 2- America

The decade opened with a course called Pebble Beach (1919), and like the landmark courses discussed before, it was also planned by a first time architect named Jack Neville along with Douglas Grant. The golf course features some very great holes – revised by Mackenzie, Egan and others – but what made the golf course great was the amount of ocean front and its influence on so many holes. Samuel Morris planned housing around Pebble Beach, but instead of being on the ocean, he set it back and let the views out be over the course and out to the ocean instead. Pebble Beach was a great example for future integrated golf and housing projects where the golf did not have to be compromised to maximize the value of the housing.

The next course built in this massive development was Cypress Point Club by Alister Mackenzie where once again the golf course features the most ideal land. Where Cypress Point was clever was how Mackenzie used his architecture to integrate the trees, the dunes land and the ocean frontage. It is a remarkable lesson in the importance of transition and how this is accomplished. Anyone trying to integrate two completely different environments should look at this example. Cypress Point also does a wonderful job of teaching us about how the best holes are far more important than meeting convention, back to back par threes and fives are lost within this paradise.

George Thomas would start Riviera in 1927 with a simple box canyon that was not overly spectacular and would go on to eventually create one of the greatest courses the game has to offer. The amazing thing about Riviera is the amount the course rewards a player who can work the ball. Thomas balanced fades and draws even occasionally asking for both on many holes. He used trees, bunkers and slopes to influence your decisions, but also used carry bunkers and options to encourage thoughtful play. Riviera is almost a flawless example of a golf course that is fair and interesting for the average player, while an exacting an clever test of a great players ability to work the ball and use their head.

There were other architects regional architects including Langford and Moreau who were all busy at work building 100’s of new courses throughout the United States trying to fill the demand for new courses. One particular architect bares specific mention for the influence he would eventually have. William Flynn was a Philadelphia based designer of a series of golf course that were not as aesthetically pleasing as Mackenzie or Thomas work, but Flynn was a master strategist. Flynn carefully laid out his holes so that the golfer had to make shots in order to score. He used a combination of green slopes, fairway slopes, trees and bunkers to force the player to shape and work the ball for position. He often completely dictated playand became the basis for the modern school of architecture.

Next entry: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/03/1920-1930-part-3-books-that-shaped-game.html